Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time.

Menu

Ron Paul’s YouTube Interview

Ron Paul sat down for his YouTube interview on Friday. Fairly interesting, mostly because Paul usually does well in one-on-one situations like this. And it’s nice to see an interview of Ron Paul that focuses on something other than the Iraq War. He talks about taxes, a libertarian position on the environment, and gives a passionate defense of his position on abortion.

Like this:

Imagine that, working with our Constitution. Common sense goes a long way, doesn’t it? Go Ron Paul! The People are behind you!

Anthony in Seattle

Adam

First and foremost… I am a Ron Paul supporter. But… I’m not sure I agree with his environment answer. Gas companies willful pollute the environment and donâ€™t care about their neighbors. These types of organizations require government intervention in order to keep the environment clean. I’m not sure I agree with his “respect your neighbor” ideology.

Other than that, what a great interview!

Dan Helton

The most encouraging interview of a politician I have ever seen and probabaly ever will see. Please search yourself and know this man stands for our original republic and freedom. Will you? When you give account for your life and the time you’ve spent wouldn’t it be worthwile to say you supported this man and freedom?

I am also concerned about willful pollution and having a clean environment. But something I don’t think many people realize is just how much the government regulatory agencies protect the industries they are supposed to regulate, and don’t protect the people.

you are correct, corporations don’t really care about the environment, they care about money. It is the job of the courts (not the executive branch of govt.) to make sure that corporations are held to strict account so that any damage to a neighbor’s property is turned into monetary damages to the corporation. Only then will the corporation care about the environment, or least they will care about their neighbor’s property.

But most state and federal agencies prempt the courts, and turn torts (legal harms) into taxes (fines paid to the govt.)

Just one example, there is a large oil refinery just south of Minneapolis/St.Paul. They have been leaking something underground, and it infiltrated the groundwater and is moving toward the river. Several private properties lie between the river and the refinery. Obviously these properties have been damaged, and you would think they could hit the refinery for millions, but the EPA and the MNPCA won’t allow any lawsuit to proceed until they have completed their investigation and assessed their fines, etc.

The problem is that the investigation has been going on forever, and the fines only amount to around $50,000 / day, which is chump change for the refinery.

Meanwhile the properties are left in legal limbo. Unable to collect damages, unable to sell, unable to live there (there are a lot of nasty smells around an oil refinery)

Later

The same situation exists in meat packing plants, you can’t sue the plant if their meat makes you sick – not even if your spouse or child dies. They just pull out their handy-dandy FDA / USDA inspection reports and say “Whoa, wait a minute; it’s not our fault, we took every reasonable precaution, and here is the report with the inspector’s signature and seal to prove it.” and then the judge says “case dismissed.” (I exagerate a little, the conversation won’t go exactly like that, but the effect will be the same.)

js290

Gas companies willful pollute the environment and donâ€™t care about their neighbors. These types of organizations require government intervention in order to keep the environment clean.

Where was the government when these companies were willfully polluting the environment? Willfully allowing it to happen, perhaps?

Grayboy

Great interview.

Go Ron Paul 2008!

Amy

I think Dr. Paul’s assertion is exactly correct; if you enforce personal property rights and individual rights then these laws will prevent “your neighbors” from polluting beyond their own property. If they want to dump toxic waste on their land that’s one thing.. if that same toxic waste permeates into the neighbors water table — the polluter violated the law.

We need more government to do what again? Help the poor and protect the environment?

Bret

Shouldn’t the government also be investigating and prosecuting criminal charges against executives and managers that authorize polluting? Wouldn’t that do more for curbing pollution than some 50k/day fines?

Taking care of the environment is a relatively new thing for people to care about on a grand scale.

As with all ideological shifts, the government is LAST in realizing that this is the popular view.

They’ve spent too long HELPING corporations get away with heavy pollution and other reckless behavior that property rights could have solved.

If we didn’t rely so much on the government (EPA, FCC, FDA, etc.) then we’d have a wellspring of competing “watchdog” agencies giving us honest assessments of how much damage different companies are doing, whether environmentally, or to our health, or whatever.

The government is a sad failure at almost everything it tries to get involved with.

The worst pollution in history has occurred under the most over-reaching governments (Soviet Union for example)…

In a free market with property rights, no one has any right to pollute someone else’s property, or air or water for that matter. Get the government out of the way on this and watch people work it out peacefully.

-Chad

Alexia

Another problem with the environment being decided on a state-bystate basis is that the environment crosses state lines. The legal system is set up in a manner that makes it difficult and expensive to sue an entity that’s located in a different state.

Jim

Regarding Chad’s comment, the USSR and most other dictatorial/communist nations are not particularly concerned about pollution, and so having the worst pollution in history as a “over-reaching government” doesn’t really tell you anything about the relationship between being “over-reaching” and the level of pollution found in that nation.